Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1337
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
AHMAD RIZAL UMAR – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: S-06A(M)-3-06/2020]
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, establishing that the Appellant's actions and contradictory statements proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Section 302 - Appeal against conviction for murder - The Appellant, a police inspector, was charged with murdering his lover, who was found dead in her home. The High Court convicted him based on circumstantial evidence despite his defense of a robbery gone wrong. The evidence included lack of forced entry, the Appellant's contradictory statements, and expert opinions that indicated the injuries were self-inflicted and inconsistent with his claims. The prosecution proved a prima facie case under s 180(3) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. (Paras 16-28)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The court established that circumstantial evidence can lead to a conviction if it proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant's actions and the evidence presented led to the irresistible conclusion of his guilt. (Paras 20-25)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant was charged with murdering the Deceased, who was romantically involved with him while he was also married. The High Court acquitted the Appellant initially, but the Federal Court ordered a retrial, leading to his conviction. (Paras 3-12)
Findings of Court:
The Appellant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, with the court affirming the conviction based on circumstantial evidence and the motive established through a love triangle. (Paras 12-28)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the Appellant's testimony, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, and whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 20-25)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the circumstantial evidence was compelling, showing that the Appellant was the one who inflicted the fatal injuries on the Deceased, thus affirming the conviction. (Paras 25-28)
Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's conviction was upheld, maintaining the death sentence.
A. Introduction
[1] This appeal concerned a police investigating officer (IO) who was charged with murdering his lover but he had however alleged that she was killed by a robber who broke into her home.
[2] A draft copy of this judgment (Draft) had been previously forwarded to Supang Lian and Collin Lawrence Sequerah JJCA. Both my learned sister and brother had agreed with the Draft.
B. Previous proceedings
[3] The appellant (Appellant) was a police inspector who was charged with the murder of one Cik Kartini bt Borhan (Deceased) in Lot 7, Phase 5, Taman Andika, Keningau, Sabah (Premises) on 29 September 2011, between 4.00 am and 5.00 am (Amended Charge), an offence punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code ( PC ).
[4] At the end of the prosecution case, the High Court acquitted and discharged the Appellant of the Amended Charge (High Court's Initial Acquittal and Discharge).
[5] The prosecution's appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court's Initial Acquittal and Discharge was dismissed (Court of Appeal's Decision).
[6] Upon further appeal by the prosecution against the Court of Appeal's Decision to the Federal Court, the Federal Court allowed the appeal and ordered the Appellant to enter his defence on the Amended Charge (Federal Court's Decision).
C. The prosecution's case
[7] The prosecution had adduced the following evidence:
(1) the Deceased rented a bedroom at the Premises (Bedroom);
(2) before the incident which led to the death of the Deceased
(Incident)-
(a) the Deceased was having an affair with one Mr Lim Guan Heng (PW12). In this judgment, we shall refer to this affair as the "Affair (Deceased-PW12)";
(b) the Appellant was married to another lady but since February 2011, he had an affair with the Deceased [Affair (Deceased-Appellant)];
(c) the Affair (Deceased-Appellant) was subsequent to the Affair (Deceased-SP12) but nonetheless both affairs continued at the same time. There was therefore a love triangle involving the Deceased, Appellant and PW12 (Love Triangle); and
(d) by July, 2011, the Appellant spent most of his nights with the Deceased in the Bedroom;
(3) the Appellant was a police Inspector who had been an experienced IO in the Criminal Investigation Department. With his training and work experience as an IO, the Appellant had murdered the Deceased and made the Deceased's murder appear as if a robber (Assailant) had broken into the Premises and attacked both the Appellant and Deceased;
(4) the Appellant had the following injuries-
(a) a lineal cut on the inner half of the left palm of the Appellant's hand;
(b) a lineal cut on the inner half of the Appellant's right chest above and inner to his right nipple;
(c) an oblique lineal cut on the right shoulder region near the right base of the Appellant's neck;
(d) a lineal cut on the lower half of the right side of the Appellant's chest;
(e) an oblique elliptical cut on the back of the Appellant's left shoulder;
(f) an oblique lineal cut on the left mid-back, below the left shoulder blade of the Appellant;
(g) an oblique lineal cut over the Appellant's thoracic vertebrae;
(h) a curvilinear oblique cut below the right knee cap of the Appellant; and
(i) a cut on the dorsum of the Appellant's right foot
(Appellant's Injuries);
(5) a forensic pathologist attached to the Department of Forensic Medicine, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Dr Siew Shue Fong (PW23), gave an expert view regarding the Appellant's Injuries (PW23's Expert Opinion). According to PW23's Expert Opinion, among others-
(a) the Appellant's Injuries were non-life threatening; and
(b) the Appellant's Injuries were not consistent with the consequences of a combative encounter. This was because-
(i) the two incised wounds on the back of the Appellant were similar in appearances in the sense that both wounds were almost parallel in orientation and situated at the same level of the Appellant's back;
(ii) wounds caused by an actual fight would have been distributed in a random manner over the Appellant's body
